Terminology question

My understanding of "clone" as applied to a plant is that it is genetically identical to another plant - thus plants propagated by division are clones, as are those propagated by meristematic tissue culture techniques.

Similarly, alba is a plant that normally would make colored flowers that has had a genetic mishap and so doesn't make the pigment anymore. Semi-alba would be one that only makes color in the lip.

I could easily be wrong, and often am. Just ask my son.

 

Alba is with red pigment, inclusive of purple etc. Therefore, an alba Cattleya perciviliana will be white with a yellow lip. Whereas a semi alba Cattleya walkeriana will be white with the purple with yellow lip.

Let me know if you want to know about the varieties of intermedia or purpurata!

 

I am probably wrong, but I've always used the noun clone as to mean an individual (plant), that presumably is(or can make)[ a]division , and is different from other plants of its species.
The verb to clone is another matter,it means to make an identical copy (by asexual division).
I don't think the term is limited only to laboratory cloned plants.

 

I concur that clone could be a laboratory clone or a botanical clone. By convention, if I asked what clone of Paph rothschildiana was nicest you would still give the clonal name of your favorite FCC.

 

Here's another "I could be wrong, but" comments... your definition is actually closer to "variety" - is notably different to others, and "breeds true," i.e., its offspring retain the noted properties when selfies or bred from others of the same variety.

That differs from "cultivar," or "cultivated variety," which indicates a plant being different from its siblings due to the typical distribution of genetics.

Clone indicates identical genetics, and will apply to any asexual copy, whether by division, or replication of meristematic tissues.

 

More accurately ( I think), any other plant from the same seedpod would be a different clone.
No two plants from the same pod are completely identical.
A variety is a group of plants (of different clones), that exhibit a consistent set of variations/differences from the typical / usual variety.

 

With regard to Spiro's, if the person means that particular individual, then it is a clone. So you can say that this particular clone of P. rothschildianum 'Rex' seems to have a smaller flower size than other clones (of 'Rex'). But the terminology is frequently missused in the following case. You can't say the clone, P. rothschildianum 'Rex', has smaller flowers than modern clones. The correct term in this case is a "genet", which is the group of genetically identical clones, since the person is making a general statement about 'Rex' in general. But we understand what the person means even though it is not strictly correct. The alternative biological word for a clone is a "ramet".
I saw a related article posted here:
http://www.cpukforum.com/forum/index.php?/topic/58427-definition-of-the-terms-clone-clonotype/

The official names for the forms need to be described and published. They don't have to call them f. alba or f. album for the whiter/greener forms. A lot of the times, f. semi-alba etc. is just what hobbyists use to communicate the color (without the publication of the description), so there are quite a bit of arbitrariness. Here is a related thread: http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39778

 

Taxonomy and Terminology are related, and both are contact sports.

 

I agree that the misuse of 'clone' isn't too bad, but the other more annoying misuse of terminology is sib-crossing. Siblings are the kids who shares at least one of the parent. But some people use sib-cross instead of outcross when they are crossing the conspecific individuals. Full-sib crossing means crossing 2 individuals which share 2 parents. Half-sib crossing means crossing 2 individuals which share only 1 parent. So D and E are kids of A x B cross, and F is a kid of B x C. Then the full sib crossing is D x E, and half sib crossing is D x F. Genetically, there is a BIG difference between sib-cross vs outcross. There are different degrees of inbreeding (e.g. crossing between two individuals which share a grand-grand parent etc) within outcrossing, but it shouldn't be called sib crossing. I personally prefer sib-crossing or self-fertilizing to preserve the regional variation.

 

Haha, but taxonomy seems to be more democratic! Each person brings out the data, evidence, and logic. Then each person judges who is right, and then the consensus can be reached at some point. Each person doesn't have the same voting power, but there is nothing wrong with going with what you decide! But there are always arbitrariness because it is basically for the convenience of communication.

 

Let us not forget in flask proliferation in respect to clones.

 

Clone refers to identical genetics, not phenotype. Depending on culture, genetically identical individuals (clones) may look different. Not sure how wide-spread that is in orchids. I just have one example, where a Bulbo roxburghii has lots of long roots hanging in the air in moist-warm terrarium, but in intermediate-drier GH the roots are all attached to the cork slab. Those are divisions from a single plant, so presumably clones. This is under the heading of genotype x environment interaction.